Talk:New Europe (politics)

Prologue
I have removed the following sentences: "The term implies that there is no single Pan-European identity in the European Union, but that it is divided (and that part of it is 'better'). It is a common example of the conservative American view-point on European affairs, and is regarded as an "ignorant"-one by many European politicians and many others." The former sentence is particularly ill-executed. The fact that an entity can be subdivided does not prevent its ultimate unity. "Old Europe" and "New Europe" can still make up a united Europe. I suspect that the "implication" is really an inference and as such only relevant if we can state who has inferred it. I also note that the lists of countries at Old Europe and New Europe do not tally. One article refers to post-communist states (as contrasted with those west of the Iron Curtain), and the other makes the division based on degree of support for the war. Something is clearly amiss. Perhaps the terms aren't as exactly defined as some people would like them to be… --Stemonitis 01:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact remains that this is frequently regarded as a surerb example of American ignorance in Europe. +Hexagon1 (t) 10:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Map
Hungary from Austria-Hungary. Austria-Hungary was a Dual-state.The picture is not pher! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.75.220 (talk) 18:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It is also debatable if Norway should be listed as independent from 1905. Norway had its own parliament and government from 1814, what influence Sweden had gradually disappeared throughout the 19th century, making a personal union the only real tie. If Norway became independent in 1905 it could be argued that Sweden did the same.

Neutral point of view?
"...used by conservative political analysts in the United States"

Not only... this is official commercial created by Polish government agency PAIZ:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRdLcqhpoQ8

www.paiz.gov.pl

Many of the mentioned countries did not support an invasion of Iraq.
For example Croatia, Slovakia, Slovenia and Serbia & Montenegro. It's also uncertain whether Ukraine, Moldova and Bosnia actually supported the war. Merat 18:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This makes this sentence rather inaccurate: "'New European' countries were originally distinguished by their governments' support of the 2003 war in Iraq, as opposed to an "Old Europe" noted as unsupportive of that war." So, I am removing the list of countries associated with "New Europe". --Merat 18:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added some detail about actual support for the invasion, which illustrates better what the OE/NE distinction really meant. I've also added references.Dwtray2007 19:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Map
I would like to see also a map. Marc KJH (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

...but other map. --Hoygan!! (talk) 01:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

This definition is wrong and biased.
New Europe is not "a rhetorical term used by conservative political analysts in the United States to describe European post-Communist era countries." The statement: "'New European' countries were originally distinguished by their governments' support of the 2003 war in Iraq, as opposed to an 'Old Europe' noted as unsupportive of that war." is also untrue. The term "New Europe" has nothing to do with the 2nd Iraq War. New Europe refers to the ten post-communist Eastern European countries that have joined the European Union since 2004. These countries include: Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia and the Czech Republic; all of which joined the EU in 2004. These countries were followed by Romania and Bulgaria, who both joined the EU in 2007. The distinction between "New Europe" and "Old Europe" has nothing to do with a country's political stance regarding the Iraq War, but rather is in reference to New Europe's emerging and growing economy versus Old Europe's established economy. The distinction between New Europe and Old Europe can also be in reference to New Europe's new democracies (the Iron Curtain has only been raised for 17 years) versus Old Europe's established democracy. Bfriedlander (talk 03:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm really curious how those conservative analysts from the US define "new". Hungary has been in Europe for over 1,100 years, that's about five times as long as the entire history of the US. BTW the people of several of these countries did not support the war, only their governments did, and the government's decision to enter the war met widespread opposition. – Alensha   talk  21:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * They are new to the phenomenon of capitalistic democracy. 68.62.16.149 (talk) 03:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hungary has been under Russian occupation until 1989. --86.101.139.192 (talk) 10:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Finland
The map is incorrect regarding Finland. It gained its independence in 1917. 68.62.16.149 (talk) 03:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Romania
Even though Romania gained its independence in 1878, it belongs to the group of ex-Communist Eastern-Bloc Countries and it also supported the invasion of Iraq. According to this flawed definition, Romania is part of both, or conversely, part of neither. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.163.62 (talk) 05:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on New Europe (politics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20040816193453/http://slate.msn.com:80/id/2078876 to http://slate.msn.com/id/2078876/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)